Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China

Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China
Exploring the Extant Trends, Circumstances, and Supports associated with
Study in China among Historically Underrepresented American Students
Lawrence Corio
Teachers College, Columbia University
lmc2199@tc.columbia.edu
Tao Huang
Teachers College, Columbia University
th2414@tc.columbia.edu
Prepared for:
Institute of International Education
Raisa Belyavina, Senior Research Officer
(212) 984-5531
rbelyavina@iie.org

2
Executive Summary
Introduction
Amidst growing political and economic globalization on the world stage, there are
few relationships as pivotal to securing world peace and prosperity than that between the
United States and China (Lieberthal & Pollack, 2012), and among the most important
components of this relationship, notes Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, is educational
exchange (Yang, 2008b). Research routinely cites the potential of study abroad for
improving job prospects, foreign language skills, and institutional and community
leadership. Such benefits would prove invaluable to students as they return from abroad,
mature into leadership roles, and nurture political, economic, and cultural relations
between the U.S. and China.
Yet, Open Doors data indicate that more than ten times as many Chinese students
travel to the U.S. for educational programs than Americans who study in China, a reality
that could compromise strategic trust between the two countries (IIE, 2011a). Launched
by the U.S. State Department in 2010, the 100,000 Strong Initiative represents a national
effort to redress this imbalance. By supporting programs and funding opportunities, it
seeks to increase the number of Americans studying abroad in China to 100,000 in four
years time and to diversify the composition of this group by recruiting more historically
underrepresented students.1
While efforts to increase diversity in study abroad programs have the potential to
improve all students’ cultural sensitivity, learning outcomes, and future employment
prospects, trends point to consistent underrepresentation among certain student groups.
Additionally, information about U.S.- and Chinese-based opportunities specifically
catered to underrepresented student travel to China is limited, and the obstacles facing
these groups are numerous and varying in intensity. Our partnership with the Institute of
International Education, an international leader in educational exchange, training, and
student mobility data collection, bespeaks the urgency of further inquiry into this area and
the potential significance yielded by its results.
Methodology
Through analysis of literature, program materials and websites, and four phone
interviews with experts in underrepresented student mobility, this pilot study explores the
context and key details surrounding extant programs and funding opportunities that
support study abroad to China among underrepresented students, who are defined, for
purposes of this study, as fitting into one of the following categories:
• Community college students
• Racial minority students
• Students with disabilities
• Students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors
1
Herein referred to as “underrepresented students.”

3
Findings and Recommendations
Driven by the 100,000 Strong Initiative’s goal of diversifying the group of
Americans studying in China, findings yield insight into trends, major obstacles, and
study abroad efforts associated with underrepresented student mobility to China, and are
delineated by country – U.S. or China – and student group. Heeding these results, the
following recommendations are offered to study abroad providers and IIE in hopes of
encouraging and managing future growth of underrepresented student mobility to China.
To Study Abroad Programs
Investment
• Bolster institutional and administrative support for underrepresented student
mobility
• Expand funding and employment opportunities for underrepresented students
Outreach and recruitment
• Establish a dedicated study abroad office and staff on college/university
campuses
• Distribute inclusive study abroad materials and solicit underrepresented study
abroad alumni for support
Program structure
• Create state, national, and/or international program consortia
To the Institute of International Education
Data collection and dissemination
• Isolate data on rates of underrepresented student mobility to China
• Coordinate with the U.S. Department of State, Chinese Ministry of Education,
and international research organizations in China to disseminate data on
underrepresented student mobility

4
Introduction
Amidst growing political and economic globalization on the world stage, there are
few relationships as pivotal to securing world peace and prosperity than that between the
United States and China (Lieberthal & Pollack, 2012), and among the most important
components of this relationship, notes Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, is educational
exchange (Yang, 2008b). Research routinely cites the potential of study abroad for
improving job prospects, foreign language skills, and institutional and community
leadership. Such benefits would prove invaluable to students as they return from abroad,
mature into leadership roles, and nurture political, economic, and cultural relations
between the U.S. and China.
Yet, Open Doors data indicate that more than ten times as many Chinese students
travel to the U.S. for educational programs than Americans who study in China, a reality
that could compromise strategic trust between the two countries (IIE, 2011a). Launched
by the U.S. State Department in 2010, the 100,000 Strong Initiative represents a national
effort to redress this imbalance. By supporting programs and funding opportunities, it
seeks to increase the number of Americans studying abroad in China to 100,000 in four
years time and to diversify the composition of this group by recruiting more historically
underrepresented students.
Many praise diversification efforts for their potential to improve all students’
cultural sensitivity, learning outcomes, and future employment prospects; Princeton
professor Stanley Katz (2008) goes so far as to say that diversifying study abroad
programs aids in strengthening American democracy home and throughout the world. As
higher education institutions (HEIs) grow increasingly diverse, study abroad
professionals are advocating for similar changes in the traditionally homogeneous study
abroad population. However, trends point to consistent – and often considerable –
underrepresentation among certain post-secondary student groups, including community
college students, racial minorities, students with disabilities, and students in STEM
majors. Additionally, information about U.S.- and Chinese-based opportunities
specifically catered to underrepresented student travel to China is limited, and the
obstacles facing these student groups are numerous and varying in intensity.
As the U.S.-China relationship grows more multifaceted and far-reaching, the
need for a diverse group of leaders with “the capacity to adapt to strangers and strange
ways” becomes all the more urgent (Katz, 2008, p. 8). If the student groups noted above
continue to remain underrepresented in study abroad to China and elsewhere, they not
only sacrifice the significant personal and cultural benefits associated with the
experience, but would also find themselves at a disadvantage in the current labor market
that increasingly values international experience and global competence (Wilson-
Oyelaran, 2006). Our partnership with the Institute of International Education (IIE), an
international leader in educational exchange, training, and student mobility data
collection, bespeaks the urgency of further inquiry into this area and the potential
significance yielded by its results.

5
This brief begins with a review of literature pertinent to U.S.-China educational
relations and American student mobility to China – especially among underrepresented
students – as well as a description of the data and methods used throughout the inquiry
process. It then outlines a framework derived from the 100,000 Strong Initiative and
examines the current trends, obstacles, and efforts in place associated with
underrepresented American students. Prompted by our findings, this brief puts forth a list
of recommendations to both study abroad programs and IIE in the areas of investment,
outreach and recruitment, program structure, and data collection and dissemination. If
adopted, these recommendations promise to support the growth and management of
underrepresented student mobility to China.
Background
Trends in Sino-American Student Mobility
A decade’s worth of research (Bohm, 2003; Huang, 2007; Lasanowski & Verbik,
2007; Marginson, 2004; Yang, 2008a) has established China as being among the world’s
most promising study abroad markets with “the potential to dwarf all traditional offshore
markets” (Yang, 2008a, p. 272). China’s dedication to globalization – especially
increasing domestic and foreign access to its higher education system – has prompted the
U.S. to advocate for Chinese language programs, partnerships with Chinese institutions,
and new avenues for mobilizing American students across the Pacific. Thomas A. Farrell
(2008), Deputy Assistant Secretary for Academic Programs in the U.S. State
Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, implicates the nations’ future
interconnectedness, urging, “As the U.S. negotiates complex issues of the 21st
century,
it’s important that we have Americans working in China, more leaders who speak
Chinese, and who have direct knowledge of the country” (p. 25).
Upon China’s implementation of the “Opening Up” policies in 1979, it took less
than ten years for the nation to assume position as the top sending country of students to
the United States. Open Doors 2011, issued by IIE, highlights continued growth among
students traveling from and to China (IIE, 2011a). Of the 723,277 total university
students worldwide who studied in the U.S. in 2010/11, more than one in five, or
157,558, came from China, an astounding 23.5% increase from the previous year. For
American students, China has also steadily grown into a location of choice for
educational opportunities abroad. The last decade, in particular, has seen a surge in
student mobility to China: 13,910 American college and university students chose to
study there in 2009/10, compared to fewer than 3,000 in 1999/2000 (IIE, 2011b).
Accounting for 5% of the 270,604 American students who studied abroad for academic
credit in 2009/10, China is now the United States’ fifth largest host country – behind
traditionally popular European nations, including the U.K., Italy, Spain, and France (IIE,
2011a). These trends indicate the continued need for knowledge exchange and cultural
sensitivity between the U.S. and China.

6
History of Sino-American Academic Exchange
The late twentieth century witnessed a deepening of Sino-American relations
across social, political, economic, and cultural spheres on an unprecedented scale.
Multiple presidential meetings and summits between the two nations was evidence of the
increasing multidimensionality of the ties between the world’s most populous country
and one of its most influential states (Koehn & Yin, 2002). The partnership between the
U.S. and China particularly intensified in 1979, when paramount leader Deng Xiaoping
consolidated power and implemented his “Opening Up” reform policies. Leveraging this
liberalization of the economic and educational sectors, leaders endeavored to strengthen
Sino-American educational and scientific partnership during the late 1970s and into the
1980s after it had been halted for two decades upon the founding of the People’s
Republic of China in 1949.
Social and political movements in China and Western countries traditionally
directed the orientation of Sino-American academic exchange prior to 1950. Lampton,
Madancy, and Williams (1986) note that these factors similarly governed relations after
1979, with fundamental questions up for consideration, such as: “Can China change
economically and still preserve valued elements of its culture? … What values should its
leaders embrace? … How dependent on the external world should China be? Will
scientific and educational interaction with America and the West foster independence or
dependence?” (p. 16) As the U.S. and China grew increasingly interdependent – both
economically and academically – policy reforms would influence their partnership. In
1979, the “Opening Up” agenda transformed the highly centralized planned economy into
a market-driven and dynamic economic system. Further, China’s higher education system
experienced massive changes prompted by increased demand for “personnel with
competence and versatile skills,” ultimately fueling “a great need for knowledge and
technology acquisition to further innovation” (Ma, 2003, p. 4). Beijing initiated the
reduction of government control in higher education, and devolved decision-making
powers to the local authorities and individual institutions (Hawkins, 2000; Lampton et al.,
1986). Universities leveraged this flexibility to pursue diversification and provide
education geared to meeting increased demand (Min, 2002).
To encourage the growth of world-class universities, China issued the Education
Act of the People’s Republic of China in 1995, which encouraged the expansion of
academic exchanges and cooperation education with foreign partners (Mok & Xu, 2008).
Specifically, the Act allowed local universities to collaborate with reputable overseas
institutions to launch creditable academic programs. This led to an infusion of foreign
educational resources – including infrastructure and personnel – thereby enhancing the
quality of local Chinese institutions (Hayhoe & Zha, 2004; Mok & Xu, 2008).
Since the passage of the 1995 legislation, foreign partnerships have experienced
marked growth and development. In 1995, there were only two joint programs in China
that could offer a foreign degree; according to a Chinese Ministry of Education, the
number of joint programs provided by Chinese universities in cooperation with overseas
institutions increased to 745 by 2004, while 169 of them were qualified to award foreign

7
or Hong Kong degrees (as cited in Mok, 2009). China’s educational reforms have quickly
ushered its academic system to the forefront on the global stage, yielding opportunities
for foreign students to experience a new culture and uniquely structured educational
system.
Recent meetings between counterparts within the U.S. Department of Education
and Chinese Ministry of Education have cemented the nations’ bilateral partnership into
the 21st
century. In 2000, a visit by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley resulted in
the signing of an agreement aimed at expanding Sino-American exchange across
academic areas, which would later be renewed in 2006 (Yang, 2008b). U.S. Department
of Education representatives again visited China in 2007, this time accompanied by the
Assistant Secretary of State and the twelve presidents of American universities. After
signing an agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding, Chinese Premier Wen Jintao
asserted that educational exchange was “an important force to promote healthy and stable
development of U.S.-China relations” (Yang, 2008b, p. 45).
However, not until U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Shanghai in November
2009 – cited as an opportunity address key multinational issues, such as non-
proliferation, climate change, and the economy (Branigan, 2009) – was an explicit
mention made of efforts to increase the number of Americans studying in China. First,
commenting on China’s rising power on the world stage, the President noted, “[P]ower in
the 21st
century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the
expense of another…[W]e welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful
member of the community of nations” (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). Speaking to
a primarily non-governmental audience, he further emphasized that future cooperation
would largely be rooted in interpersonal exchange between the two nations – in “the
studies we share, the business that we do, the knowledge that we gain, and even in the
sports that we play” (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). Ultimately, his indication of
the United States’ plan to expand the number of American students who study in China to
100,000 by 2014 foreshadowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s formal
announcement of 100,000 Strong Initiative in May 2010.
Study Abroad among American Underrepresented Students
Echoing sentiments expressed by the Obama Administration, Bhandari,
Belyavina, and Gutierrez (2011) declare that the dual objectives of expansion and
diversification of study abroad programs “are driven by the need to create more globally
informed U.S. citizens, increase expertise in critical foreign languages, and prepare
graduates for professional engagement and participation in an interconnected world” (p.
41). Yet, despite considerable growth in U.S. study abroad, trends have been far from
representative across student groups. Executive Director Angie Tang of the Committee of
100 – an international non-profit organization supporting constructive Sino-American
relations – interprets the goals of the 100,000 Strong Initiative as being both “numerical
and aspirational,” simultaneously seeking to increase the total number of and diversify
the composition of Americans studying in China, given the “typical American profile…of
a white female studying in a 4-year undergraduate institution” (Committee of 100, 2011).

8
100,000 STRONG INITIATIVE
MISSION
Citing the strategic importance of the U.S.-China relationship, in November 2009, President Barack
Obama announced the “100,000 Strong” initiative, a national effort designed to increase dramatically
the number and diversify the composition of American students studying in China. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton officially launched the initiative in May 2010 in Beijing. The Chinese government strongly
supports the initiative and has already committed 10,000 “Bridge Scholarships” for American students
to study in China.
This initiative seeks to prepare the next generation of American experts on China who will be
charged with managing the growing political, economic and cultural ties between the United States and
China. The initiative also seeks to develop specific opportunities and funding sources for
underrepresented students to study in China.
NEED
The need for Americans to gain greater exposure to and understanding of China is clear: there is
perhaps no more important or complex relationship in the world than that between the United States
and China in terms of securing global peace and security. Virtually no major international issue –
whether global economic recovery or climate change or nuclear non-proliferation can be solved without
the active engagement of both the United States and China, working in concert.
Yet Americans have much to learn about China. Ten times more Chinese students come to the
United States for educational programs than Americans who study in China, and 600 times more
Chinese study the English language than Americans study Mandarin. This imbalance in knowledge can
undermine strategic trust between the two countries. Redressing this imbalance in knowledge is
essential to ensuring that Americans have the cultural understanding and language skills that underpin
effective diplomacy and foreign policy. It will also enhance our students’ ability to succeed academically
and professionally in the global economy.
DEMAND
Interest in China is on the rise among Americans. The number of Americans studying in China grew
30 percent annually from 2001-2007, and we expect those numbers to continue to grow for the
foreseeable future. In the 2007-08 school year, for example, 13,165 American college students and an
estimated 1,000 high school students went to China for some type of study program. While this organic
growth is encouraging, the current trends may be insufficient to meet the real challenges and
opportunities of this vitally important relationship.
This effort complements successful existing study abroad and language study efforts by the State
Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the U.S. Department of Education, and the
U.S. Department of Defense.
Unlike those programs, however, the “100,000 Strong” Initiative relies fully on private-sector
philanthropic support to direct funds to existing U.S.-China educational exchange programs that are
seeking to expand their programs. Early estimates suggest that at least $68 million will be required to
fund this ambitious effort.
For more information, please contact Carola McGiffert at 100kstrong@state.gov. Ms. McGiffert is a
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, and Director of the
100,000 Strong Initiative.
Source:
U.S. Statement Department. (2012). 100,000 Strong Initiative.
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/100000_strong/index.htm.

9
As part of a 2008 monograph discussing the findings of IES Abroad’s Think Tank
on Diversity (2008), IES Abroad President and CEO Mary Dwyer described
“underrepresented students” as being racial/ethnic minorities, first generation immigrants,
economically needy, and those who have overcome adversity in their lives. Such
students, she notes, are considerably underrepresented in study abroad programs despite
their increasing representation in HEIs. More recent articulations of “underrepresented” –
most notably, by the Office of the First Lady (2011) and 100,000 Strong Initiative
Director Carola McGiffert (2011) – identify similar groups, including students in
community colleges, high schools, middle schools, and public schools, racial minorities,
students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and those majoring in the science and
technology fields.
Numerous and diverse obstacles to study abroad among underrepresented students
have been cited (Brux & Fry, 2010; Doyle et al., 2010; Jackson, 2005; Salisbury,
Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009), and can generally be categorized into one of the
following areas:
• Finances and scholarship transferability
• Social/cultural stigmatization
• Psychological concerns
• Institutional/curricular restrictions
• Physical limitations
Gary Rhodes, director of the Center for Global Education at the University of California,
Los Angeles, contends that improved outreach – at on-campus orientation, with parents,
and around campus – is a critical component in mitigating these obstacles or
demystifying students’ and parents’ misinterpretation of them. He declares that the most
formidable challenge for study abroad advisors is guiding students “through the process
of figuring out where to go, how to get there, how to get credit for it, and everything else
they need to know” (as cited in Dessoff, 2006, p. 27). These issues are amplified for
underrepresented students, who frequently lack adequate the necessary resources and
support required to encourage participation in study abroad (Rhodes & Hong, 2005).
Conceptual Framework
The literature related to the Sino-American educational partnership highlights a
long-standing tradition of student and professional exchange. The 100,000 Strong
Initiative appears to take this historical precedent into account while also underscoring
the importance of preparing a new wave of American experts to support the growing
political, economic, and cultural relationship between the two nations. What remains a
new – and decidedly unexplored – area is the extent to which this new troupe of
Americans will be demographically representative of the student population from which
they are gleaned. Previous research identifies gradually increasing trends in American
student travel to China (IIE, 2011b), but given the 100,000 Strong Initiative’s goal of
diversifying the composition of this group – in order to bolster intercultural sensitivity,

10
fluency in critical foreign languages, and students’ ability to engage professionally on a
global scale (Bhandari, Belyavina, and Gutierrez, 2011) – a better understanding of the
U.S.- and Chinese-based efforts that seek to achieve this end is warranted.
This pilot study also explores those programs that recruit and/or fund
underrepresented students for study abroad opportunities in China. It builds upon and
refines previous iterations of “underrepresentation” (Dessoff, 2006; IES Abroad, 2008;
McGiffert, 2011; Office of the First Lady, 2011), and defines underrepresented students
as fitting into one or more of the following categories:
• Community college students
• Racial minority students
• Students with disabilities
• Students in STEM majors2
Programs and funding initiatives are further delineated by country – U.S. or China – to
assess the extent to which the 100,000 Strong Initiative is a truly bilateral agreement.
In many ways, the Initiative has ushered Sino-American educational exchange to
the forefront of diplomatic discussions on the international stage. However, for future
sustainability, efforts must be taken to achieve not only a balance of study abroad
program offerings across the U.S. and China, but also an equitable distribution of
underrepresented students within these programs. In a 2008 white paper on study abroad
at community colleges, Allen E. Goodman, President and CEO of the Institute of
International Education, declares, “Increasing the number and diversity of American
students going abroad and encouraging them to study in places of growing strategic
importance for the future of the United States are among IIE’s core objectives”
(Goodman, 2008, p. 5). To the extent this mission echoes that which drives the 100,000
Strong Initiative, we believe this line of research – related to underrepresented student
mobility to China – is worthy of further investigation. In doing so, we have documented
findings and drafted recommendations associated with the following research questions:
• What are the current study abroad trends for historically underrepresented groups
of U.S. students – including community college students, racial minorities,
students with disabilities, and math/science majors? And to China, in particular?
• What major barriers to study abroad currently face these groups, and how do they
compare to those obstacles previously documented?
• What programs and funding opportunities are in place - in the U.S. and China - to
meet the needs of underrepresented students in supporting their study abroad to
China?
2
Though many have also cited high school students as underrepresented, the lack of objective data on their
international mobility prompted us to discontinue this line of investigation. We also refrained from
addressing the gender gap in study abroad – noted in previous research (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, Paulsen,
& Pascarella, 2010; Stroud, 2010) – as its considerations likely extend beyond the scope of this paper.

11
Methodology
Through literature review, analysis of online program materials and websites, and
four phone interviews with study abroad administrators and experts in underrepresented
student mobility, this study explores the context and key details surrounding extant
programs and funding opportunities – both in the United States and China – that support
study abroad to China among historically underrepresented student groups.
Much of the guidance and feedback related to this study’s initial review of
literature was contributed by two parties: Luis Huerta, Professor of education policy at
Columbia University’s Teachers College, and Raisa Belyavina, Senior Research Officer
at the Institute of International Education. With their input, what originally began as a
broad-scale analysis of total American student mobility to China was instead narrowed to
an investigation into underrepresented student mobility, an area more succinctly aligned
with goals of the 100,000 Strong Initiative related to diversification. Thus, the review of
research and theory addressed – but was not limited to – the key themes associated with
these goals, including a brief description of the Initiative, the context surrounding its
establishment, as well as trends in study abroad among underrepresented students and the
obstacles they face in traveling to China.
The analysis of documents – including information from program websites,
related newspaper articles, and papers in professional journals – comprised a large
portion of the evidence base for this study and is more extensively discussed in the
findings section. After several meetings with IIE staff, it was agreed that the criteria for
selecting certain programs, advocacy groups, or funding opportunities to highlight would
primarily be a commitment to supporting study abroad for underrepresented students, but
also their longevity, breadth of support for study in China, structure, and lack of previous
affiliation with IIE.3
To better understand the extant efforts by university-based and third-party study
abroad providers, interview subjects were also selected who could offer a unique
perspective on one or more of the identified groups of underrepresented students.
Research into candidates’ publication history, areas of expertise, and organizational
affiliation yielded a diverse group of six study abroad professionals. Along with
interview protocols customized by category of underrepresented student, the means of
selection ensured that interview subjects would not only be able to speak to broad,
contextual issues surrounding programs and the groups of underrepresented students they
serve, but also the more narrow elements related to this study’s focus – including trends,
obstacles, and recommendations for recruitment and outreach. To help address potential
issues related to validity and reliability, the protocols were forwarded to both Professor
Huerta and Ms. Belyavina for feedback and approval prior to engaging in the interview
process.
3
Ms. Belyavina expressed a desire that the structures of the study abroad programs identified in the study
(e.g. short-term vs. semester-long; university-based vs. third-party provider) be as representative as
possible of the many options available to underrepresented students.

12
Ultimately, only one of the six subjects originally identified was interviewed.
However, from this interview – and from references provided by other initially chosen
subjects – three additional professionals were identified and solicited for interviews.4
The
four phone interviews conducted ranged from approximately 25–65 minutes in duration
and provided insight into (a) the nature of the current obstacles facing underrepresented
students, (b) which destinations have been most receptive to these groups – with specific
comment to receptivity in China, (c) the extent of the collaboration among programs that
serve them, and (d) recruitment and outreach recommendations (see Appendix A).
Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically by each of the
principal investigators, then submitted to Professor Huerta for additional review.
The data collected were categorized broadly by nation – U.S.-based vs. Chinese-
based efforts – and more specifically by underrepresented student group. Regarding
China, however, programs and funding opportunities supporting study abroad among
American students could be less distinctly tied to each underrepresented group; as such,
Chinese efforts were divided by state- and local-level. This discrepancy in categorization
is further acknowledged in the recommendations section.
Interview subject profiles
Rosalind Latiner Raby is a Senior Lecturer at California State University,
Northridge in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department of the Michael
D. Eisner College of Education. She also serves as the Director of California Colleges for
International Education (CCIE), a consortium whose membership includes 84 California
community colleges. Dr. Raby is also the Liaison to Education Abroad Professionals at
Two-Year Institutions of the NAFSA Education Abroad Knowledge Community and is
the Community College Representative for NAFSA Region XII. Dr. Raby received her
Ph.D. in the field of Comparative and International Education from UCLA. Since 1984,
Dr. Raby has worked with community college and secondary school faculty and
administrators to help them internationalize and multiculturalize their curricula,
programs, and mission statements.
Colin Speakman currently serves as the Director of China Programs for Center
for Academic Programs Abroad (CAPA) International Education. He brings over 25
years of high-profile experience in the international education field for American
undergraduates, having served as Senior Vice President/Director of Asia Programs at the
American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS) for 17 years and taught International
Business and Finance at Richmond the American International University in London for
5 years. Since 2004, Mr. Speakman has focused on China and established programs for
many American college/university students to study Beijing, Nanjing, and Shanghai and
for the last 3 years has served as AIFS Director of China Programs in those locations as
well as advising other organizations on special China programs and making regular
contributions as a columnist to the China Daily newspaper. Mr. Speakman is responsible
for all CAPA semester and summer programs in China, manages the organization’s
4
Merriam (2009) refers to this technique of recruiting interview subjects as “snowballing,” whereby one
subject recommends another, often on grounds of familiarity, relevance, and/or expertise.

13
operations and development in China, and acts as its liaison with U.S. institutions
considering establishing programs in China. He has lived in China since 2008.
Michele Scheib serves as Project Specialist of the National Clearinghouse on
Disability and Exchange, which is sponsored by the United States Department of State
and administered by Mobility International USA. She has worked with the clearinghouse
since 1998, developing thematic initiatives, presenting at conferences, responding to
inquiries, managing staff and projects, and writing publications. She works on initiating
new projects each year involving the website, social media, outreach, and research. She
specializes in advising exchange participants with disabilities to and from the United
States, and providing technical assistance to colleges/universities and organizations on
disability inclusion and international exchange. Ms. Scheib completed her Master’s
degree in Comparative and International Development Education at the University of
Minnesota, addressing the topic of students with non-apparent disabilities in education
abroad.
Andrew Gordon is Founder and President of Diversity Abroad, which he
established in 2006 to connect diverse students, recent graduates and young professionals
with international study, intern, teach, volunteer, degree and job opportunities. As an
undergraduate at the University of San Francisco he had the opportunity to study abroad
in Cuernavaca, Mexico and Seville, Spain. He also worked in Madrid, Spain after he
graduated. With a passion for working with students, learning languages and about new
cultures, he started Diversity Abroad to connect students and young professionals with
meaningful international opportunities. He also speaks to student groups and professional
on various topics that pertain international education and careers.
Findings
What follow are sections categorized by country – U.S. or China – which describe
current efforts to stimulate growth in and provide supports for underrepresented student
mobility to China. To the extent that the 100,000 Strong Initiative represents a bilateral
agreement between the U.S. and China, delineating efforts by country highlights areas of
strength and opportunities for growth related to the Initiative’s goals.
United States
Our investigation of U.S.-based programs and funding opportunities yielded
results by group of underrepresented students: community college students, racial
minority students, students with disabilities, and students in STEM majors. Thus, this
first section compiles findings for each of these groups related to studying abroad in
China, including current mobility rates, major obstacles to study abroad, and a selection
of supporting organizations – in the way of service provision, funding, or advocacy – that
focus on serving their needs.

14
Community college students
In the 2008 IIE white paper, Expanding Education Abroad at U.S. Community
Colleges, Rosalind Latiner Raby highlights the importance of study abroad opportunities
for community college students. For instance, while all participants tend report
interpersonal, academic, cultural, and personal benefits of studying abroad, students from
immigrant families and those who have traveled infrequently – “many of whom study at
community colleges – have the opportunity the “re-learn their own cultures” and enjoy
“life-altering” experiences that “can have significant impact on their careers” (Raby,
2008, p. 9). As Director of California Colleges for International Education (CCIE), Raby
oversees nearly half of all U.S. community college students who study abroad each year.
Reminiscent of the fiscal climate nationally, California’s fledgling budget has forced
colleges and universities into retrenchment, making study abroad a tougher sell for
organizations like CCIE and the initiatives they support. Raby hopes that recent research,
which suggests students’ improved academic performance and shorter time to graduation
upon returning home from abroad (GLOSSARI, 2010), will contribute to administrators’
decisions to retain and continue funding study abroad programs at community colleges.
Growth in study abroad among U.S. community college students has
generally kept pace with international mobility numbers across colleges and
universities nationwide. Prior to recent austerity measures that have prompted the
closure of summer programming in California – a state which accounts for
approximately half of the total community college study abroad population –
community colleges had been experiencing annual growth in study abroad
upwards of 8% (AACC, 2011), compared to a national average between 4% and
8% (IIE, 2011a). Students predominantly pursue opportunities in Western Europe,
and as a whole, Asia garners only 9% of community college study abroad
participants nationwide (Raby, 2008). However, a recent surge in the popularity
of nontraditional locations among all community college and university students
indicates shifting trends.
In terms of representation,
community college students
continue to comprise a
significantly smaller percentage
of the study abroad population
than they do the overall
undergraduate college/university
population. Over the last ten
years, findings indicate that
community college students have
consistently represented nearly
half of all undergraduate students
in HEIs, yet make up less than 3%
of the total study abroad
population (Figure 1). Source: American Association of Community Colleges; IIE; U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

15
A joint IIE-CCIE (2008) survey completed by 60 community college
administrators yielded objective insight into the challenges limiting the expansion of
study abroad at community colleges. Among the most significant, student cost and fees
(83%), budget cuts (53%), and limited staff resources (53%) were each cited by at least
half of the respondents as being particularly “critical.” The majority of respondents also
identified the need for sufficient financial aid for under-represented students (92%),
increased funding to develop/support study abroad (65%), and increased funding to cover
program costs (60%) to further expand study abroad opportunities. However, Raby, who
initially disseminated these data, plans to revisit her findings: “If you do a cost-benefit
analysis, you’re finding…that study abroad programs at community colleges, when done
appropriately, cost almost nothing.”
Instead, while many barriers remain, the “most important” currently relates to
institutional support. With little time and fewer resources, senior administrators are rarely
able to entertain options for growth in study abroad programming. “Education abroad is
not a priority,” Raby concedes. “It’s just not…on their agendas.” This is compounded by
high turnover rates among community college presidents; once they leave, study abroad
programs often follow suit. Third-party provider programs represent an alternative for
students, but they frequently pose conflicts with financial aid and academic credit
transferal. Also, few of these programs offer short-term options that allow students to
return to pursue work opportunities. Ultimately, says Raby, third-party providers need to
be better attuned “to what community colleges look at, what [they] accept, and why
community college students don’t go on these programs in very large numbers.”
Community college study abroad programs are themselves as numerous and
diverse as the students they serve, but generally share the following characteristics:
• Open access compliance (or open admission, regardless of education,
socioeconomic status, or disability status)
• Specific course credit transfer criteria
• Flexible program length and subject focus
• Faculty-led programs
• Consortia model (Raby, 2008)
Embracing these features, two featured organizations – California Colleges for
International Education and Community Colleges for International Development –
attempt to combat the institutional barriers that frustrate study abroad at community
college by supporting collaboration and information sharing across institutions on a state
and international scale.

16
Racial minority students
In 2008, IES Abroad convened 26 university presidents, corporate leaders, and
study abroad professionals to take part in a “Think Tank on Diversity.” The meeting
focused on how best to increase underrepresented student participation in study abroad
programs. The summative report emphasizes small- and large-scale implications of
diversity in higher education:
At a time when American college campuses increasingly include the
diverse faces of international students, international campuses should also
reflect the diverse face of Americans who study abroad. Such international
study by a diverse group of students is necessary for this country’s future
economic health and security (IES Abroad, 2008, p. 9).
As a testament to this mission, recent growth in rates of study abroad among racial
minority students has been notable. Compared to more than a decade ago when racial
minorities made up less than 16% of the U.S. study abroad population, they now
comprise more than 21% of all internationally mobile American students (IIE, 2011a).
Yet, despite increased representation in the study abroad and overall U.S. college and
California Colleges for International
Education
http://ccieworld.org/
Established in 1984, CCIE is a consortium of 84
California community colleges dedicated to
increasing international understanding through
education. It supports programming across the
following categories:
• Faculty Exchanges
• International Business
• International Development/Contract Education
• International Students
• Internationalizing the Curriculum
• Study Abroad
CCIE also sponsors a Clearinghouse Webpage,
annual meetings, thematic workshops, quarterly
study abroad brochure, and a monthly newsletter
that serve to advance these efforts. CCIE is the
primary voice of international education in
California and is instrumental in bringing
international education to scale system wide
(CCIE, n.d.).
Focus on China…
CCIE began offering study abroad programs to
China in 1988 and has continued to do so each
year since that time. It reports an average of 2-4
programs to China each year sponsored by
California community colleges.
Community Colleges for International
Development
http://ccid.kirkwood.cc.ia.us/
CCID is a consortium of 160 two-year colleges in the U.S.
and 12 other countries, and for nearly 40 years, has
supported vocational/professional education and training
overseas. It specializes in developing the community
college model for overseas clients, workforce
development, and undertaking needs assessment, but it
also initiates and manages student study abroad
programs, international faculty development programs,
senior administrator visits overseas, and conferences and
videoconferences focused on global issues in the two-
year college (CCID, 2011).
Focus on China…
Heeding community college students’ desire for practical
experience, CCID’s Troika Study Abroad Programs
provide students an opportunity to learn job skills as part
of short-term study abroad opportunities to partner
colleges throughout the world. The Troika program in
China – partnering Shanghai Financial University and
Beijing Union University with three U.S. community
colleges to offer a program – is titled, “China's Economic,
Social and Cultural Impact Due to Globalization,” and
allows students to earn college credits, learn about
Chinese economy, financial markets and banking, and
improve intercultural competency (CCID, n.d.).

17
university populations, racial
minorities continue to be
underrepresented in study
abroad when comparing these
data (Figure 2).
On average, racial
minorities comprise
approximately 35% of higher
education students in the U.S.,
but represent only 20% of the
study abroad population. Upon
parsing these data, one also
observes considerably more
polarization among black and
Hispanic students, who make up
the largest racial minority groups
on campuses but are among the
least represented in study
abroad (Figure 3).
Contrary to survey data
published by Carter (1991) and
Washington (1998) indicating
that financial constraints and
lack of awareness are the major
barriers to study abroad for
racial minorities, our findings
suggest more complex factors.
“Fear, finances, family, and
friends,” as articulated by
Diversity Abroad President
Andrew Gordon, are
individually limiting and
exponentially so when compounded. While both students and parents suffer from “fear of
the unknown,” parents’ growing influence over students’ decisions related to their
education constrains buy-in among both parties. Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, and
Pascarella (2008) indicate no statistical difference between black or Hispanic students
and white students regarding intent to study abroad, but for many parents and friends of
racial minorities, the very idea of study abroad simply seems impractical if not wholly
unnecessary. In the case of immigrant families, for instance, the purported benefits of
study abroad – travel, cultural immersion, and language acquisition – are, in many cases,
already enjoyed. Thus, the customary selling points employed with perhaps the majority
of students, do not necessarily resonate with racial minority students and their families.
Source: IIE; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

18
Potential discrimination also poses
a threat to racial minorities’ participation
in study abroad. Gordon notes that for
“Chinese students going to China [who]
don’t speak Chinese…Residents say, ‘How
are you Chinese and don’t speak
Chinese?’… They’re more interested in
white students.” The culture shock dispels
romanticized expectations of a
“homecoming.” Diversity Abroad consults
with campus diversity and study abroad
offices to provide insight about meeting
the needs of their students, especially
related to discrimination.
Expectations and interpretation
have much to do with racial minority
students’ propensity to study abroad. The
growing popularity of nontraditional
destinations – China, most notably –
among racial minorities exemplifies this.
When more practical arguments are put
forth, noting the utility of studying or
interning abroad in terms of future
employment, earnings, or setting oneself
apart from peers, the opportunity is more
compelling to students and families
formerly averse to the idea. “How am I
going to make myself stand out?” Gordon
poses. “Am I going to go to Florence
or…Shanghai? I’m going to go to
Shanghai.” The majority of students,
including racial minorities, continue to
pursue study in Western Europe, but China
and other nontraditional locations have
garnered increasing interest. For instance,
while China is now the fifth largest host
country for international students, it is the
leading destination for those at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, which
send more than one in five study abroad
students there each year (IIE, 2011a).
Gordon reiterates, “There are so many
opportunities in China for business,
government, whatever it may be; …so,
there’s a push…to do more with China.”
Diversity Abroad
http://www.diversityabroad.com/
Diversity Abroad was founded to ensure that students from
diverse economic, educational, ethnic and social
backgrounds are aware, have equal access and take
advantage of the benefits and opportunities afforded
through global education exchanges (Diversity Abroad,
2012a). Since 2006, the organization has sought to connect
a fast growing and diverse population of students and
young professionals with meaningful international
opportunities that will prepare them for future education and
career opportunities. In 2010, Diversity Abroad launched
the Diversity Abroad Network, the first international
education consortium dedicated to increasing participation
and better serving the needs of diverse and
underrepresented students in international education
(Diversity Abroad, 2012b).
Focus on China…
Diversity Abroad links to 16 organizations that offer a total
of 58 study abroad programs to China. It also provides
access to more than 14 different internship programs in
Beijing, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.
PLATO, The Center for Global Education, UCLA
http://globaled.us/
The Project for Learning Abroad, Training and Outreach
(PLATO) is an integrated study abroad training, certification,
and diversity outreach program which provides
comprehensive support resources for study abroad to all
U.S. college and university students – with special support
for underrepresented students. Among its main
components, PLATO:
• Is the first national online curriculum to orient, train, and
support students before, during, and after they study
abroad;
• Supports a national recruitment program for
underrepresented students for education abroad, as
well as a clearinghouse of resources and information
that promote greater diversity among study abroad
participants and mentors;
• Recognizes returning study abroad students who have
completed the online curriculum and outreach through
an International Honors Certificate Program.
Through PLATO, the Center has developed new Online
Mentorship resources to respond to underrepresented
students’ challenges during study abroad. Following
students’ return from abroad, PLATO guides them through
post-study abroad reentry and reintegration. Furthermore,
PLATO provides a mechanism for them to reflect on their
experiences and consider avenues for incorporating an
international component into their curriculum (Center for
Global Education, n.d.).

19
Students with disabilities
Codified into law via Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act, any individual with disabilities must be afforded the
opportunity to participate alongside non-disabled persons in all activities, including those
related to education (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & U.S.
Department of Justice, 1992; National Council on Disability, 1996). Universities have
long since adopted these statutes across their curricular and extracurricular programs,
affording students with disabilities “equal access” to study abroad opportunities around
the world (U.N. General Assembly, 2006).
To date, only four years’
worth of data has been collected on
study abroad participation among
students with disabilities, and from
only a fraction of postsecondary
institutions nationwide (IIE, 2011c).
However, from these data, which
are routinely cited by researchers
(Scheib, 2008), one observes a clear
indication of this group’s
underrepresentation in study abroad.
Comprising more than one in ten
students at U.S. colleges and
universities, students with
disabilities represent fewer than one
in every twenty students in study
abroad programs (Figure 4). Of
those who pursued study abroad in
2009/10, more than half (52.2%)
reported having a learning
disability, a fifth (20.9%) reported a mental disability, and those with physical, sensory,
or other disabilities represented the remaining 30% (IIE, 2011c).
“The barriers are, of course, going to be…specific to the type of disability,” notes
Michele Scheib, Project Specialist at the National Clearinghouse on Disability and
Exchange; they also very much depend upon the country of study. In many countries, for
instance – including much of East Asia – students’ prescribed medications are considered
controlled substances. Such a limitation, she says, significantly hinders “students with
health-related disabilities, mental health-related disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder,
those sorts of things.”
Regarding physical accessibility in China, most areas remain fairly inaccessible.
Despite major improvements to infrastructure and accommodations leading up to the
2008 Beijing Olympics and Paralympics, study abroad alumni continue to indicate a
resistance to accommodations on the part of Chinese education officials. “We don’t have
Source: IIE; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Figure 4. Students with Disabilities:
% of U.S. Study Abroad Population vs.
% of U.S. College/University Population
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
2003/04* 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Year
(*Undergraduates only)
Percentage
% of U.S. Study Abroad Population

20
a full picture of what exactly the refusal is,” nor if it is stemming from the Ministry of
Education or specifically from Chinese universities, notes Scheib. “It’s usually pretty
vague…It’s either a resistance to having students with disabilities on campus or making
changes to the campus that would make it more accessible.” To facilitate
accommodations for students, exchange providers rarely pursue legal avenues; instead,
most choose to leverage partnerships with Chinese universities in contract negotiations.
The cost of accommodations
represents another barrier, and sometimes
significantly so depending on the severity
of students’ disabilities and extent of their
required accommodations. In the case of
deaf students, for instance, American Sign
Language interpreters may be in short
supply abroad such that one or two from
U.S. have to travel along with the group.
Other types of personal assistance can
typically be secured from agencies abroad,
but issues related to “logistics,”
“infrastructure,” and “reliability” can
surface. Given overwhelming preference
among students with disabilities to
participate in inclusionary programs, rather
than those catered specifically to students
with disabilities (Matthews, Hameister, &
Hosley, 1998), many students simply resort
to being assisted by members of their study
abroad groups. However, relying too
heavily on fellow members or staff for
formal support can inadvertently burden a
group, even if the added responsibility was
intended to induce a sort of “bonding
experience.”
Students in STEM majors
American STEM majors account for more than 15% of the U.S. study abroad
population, though this is a much smaller rate when compared to international students in
the U.S., of whom more than 40% study in STEM fields – with even higher percentages
among Chinese students. These data parallel findings indicating that U.S. students are far
less internationally mobile as a whole than students from other countries (IIE, 2011a).
U.S. students in STEM majors also continue to be underrepresented in study
abroad. As noted above, STEM majors comprise 15% of the U.S. study abroad
population, but make up more than 25% of the total U.S. college/university population
Mobility International USA
http://www.miusa.org/
Mobility International USA (MIUSA) was founded in
1981 and empowers people with all types of disabilities
to achieve their human rights through international
exchange and international development. The
organization currently attends to the following areas:
• Leadership: Pioneering short-term disability
leadership programs in the U.S. and abroad.
• Exchange: Advising and providing free tools for
people with disabilities, professionals and
organizations on increasing disability inclusion in
international study, volunteer, teach and other
exchange programs.
• Advocacy and Training: Turning standards on
disability inclusion into policy and practice.
MIUSA's trainings are framing the inclusion of
people with disabilities as a human rights issue all
over the world.
• Women and Children: Bringing together
grassroots women leaders with disabilities from
around the world to build skills and strengthen
international networks of support (MIUSA, n.d.).
Focus on China…
In support of study abroad to China among students
with disabilities, MIUSA – via the National
Clearinghouse on Disability and Exchange – currently
partners with 117 organizations and offers 217
programs of varying lengths and destinations
throughout China.

21
(Figure 5). Yet, our findings
echo those forwarded in
previous analyses, which
suggest no statistically
significant difference in the
intention to study abroad
among STEM majors as
compared to their peers in the
arts and humanities, who
continue to study abroad at
considerably higher rates
(Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen,
and Pascarella, 2008).
Barriers for students in
STEM majors are primarily
related to course selection and
foreign language skills.
Arguments attributing STEM
majors’ limited participation in study abroad to curricular restrictions have been well-
documented (NAFSA, 2008), and Speakman reiterates this fact. Given students’ higher
rates of study abroad midway through or later in their degree programs, most are enrolled
in fairly specialized courses that are “just not available except in Chinese, which they
don’t understand yet.” Individualized programs – whereby students can customize their
study abroad coursework – would seem to be an alternative, but this drastically decreases
the lack of commonality among students, and, thus, the logistical viability. What ends up
happening, Speakman notes, is that programs “offer international business in China or
[courses in] understanding Chinese culture or…history” to increase the rate of
participation among all students, without explicitly accommodating the strict curricular
demands that degree programs place on STEM majors.
What Chinese universities may lack in terms of breadth of STEM coursework in
English, they make up for in quality. Instructors are not only highly educated, but also
highly invested; one need not search for long before finding “some teachers with
doctorates from top universities who can really teach,” says Speakman. But while
teachers and courses are widely available to those students fluent in Mandarin, too often
for non-native speakers, degree restrictions at their home universities eliminate any
possibility of enrolling in foreign language coursework leading up to a study abroad
experience.
Figure 5. Students in STEM Majors:
% of U.S. Study Abroad Population vs.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1999/00 2003/04 2007/08
Year
Percentage
% of U.S. Study Abroad Population

22
China
Similar to the Chinese economic system, higher education in China has undergone
major structural developments. Formerly a system based on elitism, it now emphasizes
increased access, decentralization, and delegation of power from central to local
authorities and institutions, as well as allowance for and facilitation of private higher
education (Gürüz, 2008). However, not until recently have international students been
traveling to China at notable rates. In 1990, for instance, international student enrollment
in China barely reached 7,000 (Ding, Yue, & Sun, 2009). Now, more than twenty years
later, numbers exceed 230,000 as a result of increases in the number of countries sending
students to China and of foreign recipients of Chinese government scholarships (Becker
& Kolster, 2012). The central government and local institutions have worked diligently
and collaboratively to implement increasingly sound strategies for recruiting students
from around the world, especially from the U.S.
Beyond the Bank of China’s recent monetary pledge in support of Americans
Promoting Study Abroad – a non-profit that coordinates study abroad opportunities in
China for high school students from lower-income communities – little emphasis has
been placed on attracting underrepresented American students. Progress toward this end
The Office of International Program Development,
Northwestern University
http://www.ipd.northwestern.edu/
The Office of International Program Development (IPD) was
created in 1998 to provide coordination and support to
international efforts on campus and to work with all schools to
promote internationalization and cross-school collaborations. IPD
works with faculty, school administrators, and other international
units on campus to:
• Develop an infrastructure that supports and facilitates
international studies and programs;
• Internationalize the curriculum and develop programs abroad
for undergraduate and graduate students;
• Coordinate the submission of grants to external agencies to
create new international programs on campus and abroad;
• Design, negotiate, and institutionalize partnerships with
foreign universities (IPD, 2012a).
Focus on China…
The Science and Engineering Research program provides
qualified students opportunities to work in research labs at
Tsinghua University, China's leading engineering school. Students
conduct independent research projects in science or engineering
for a total of two academic credits at Northwestern (IPD, 2012b).
As part of the 100,000 Strong Initiative, the new Wanxiang
Fellows Program will also send 12-20 Northwestern students to
China to work on one of the world’s most important challenges:
the development of sustainable green energy technologies (IPD,
2012c).
Johns Hopkins-China STEM Program,
Johns Hopkins University
http://krieger.jhu.edu/chinastem/
The key aim of the Johns Hopkins-China
STEM Program is to respond to the growing
need to break language barriers between
Chinese and American scientists and
engineers. Building upon well-established
partnerships in China and expertise in a variety
of technical disciplines, the program addresses
the increasing demand for advanced Chinese
language education in specialized fields of
study. Students, researchers, and practitioners
who understand the language, culture, and
context of China could significantly enhance
their ability to discover new theories, new
partnerships, and new practices.
The summer program is designed for
undergraduate and graduate students, post-
doctoral fellows, and researchers who seek to
enhance their Chinese language proficiency for
scientific, technological, engineering, and
medical (STEM) disciplines. Over the course of
eight weeks, students are immersed in
rigorous language training, coupled with
experiential research trips to laboratories,
hospitals, and academic institutions in Nanjing
and Beijing (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.).

23
remains an area of growth for China’s government and local institutions, though a
concerted effort to increase underrepresented student mobility to China on the part of the
U.S.-based stakeholders may first be required. The following sections provide insight into
Chinese state- and local-level educational governance, as well as scholarships and
programs for which underrepresented students from America could potentially qualify.
State-Level Efforts
International education affairs are carried out by the Chinese Ministry of
Education (MOE) and reinforced by local municipalities and institutions. Within the
MOE, the Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges is charged with
implementing guidelines and policies related to foreign affairs, as well as overseeing and
administering all educational activities between China and other countries. The Chinese
Scholarship Council (CSC), entrusted by the MOE in 1997, manages Chinese
Government Scholarships and provides financial support to international students
interested in studying in China. Each of these scholarships usually carries a distinct
scheme that is in accordance with educational exchange agreements reached between the
Chinese government and foreign governments, organizations, and education institutions
(Chinese Scholarship Council, 2012).
On April 11, 2011, at the second annual U.S.-China High-Level Consultation on
People-to-People Exchange at the U.S. State Department in Washington, the Chinese
State Councilor Liu Yandong announced, “the spring of U.S-China cultural exchanges
has come,” and the MOE would allocate a special scholarship fund for 10,000 U.S.
students in high school, college/university, or graduate school, who wish to pursue higher
education opportunities in China (Yu, 2011). During each summer from 2011 to 2015,
2,500 American students are eligible to apply to one of the 71 Confucius Institutes in the
U.S. that administer these “Bridge” scholarships, which cover full tuition and provide
living allowances (U.S. Department of State, 2011).
The MOE has designed and facilitated a range of scholarship programs to sponsor
international students who wish to undertake research and studies in Chinese higher
education institutions. Through these scholarships, the MOE seeks to “strengthen mutual
understanding and friendship between the Chinese people and people from the rest of the
world, and to enhance cooperation and exchanges in the fields of education, science and
technology, culture, economics and trade between China and other countries” (Ministry
of Education, n.d.). Scholarships are differentiated by scheme, targeted student
population (e.g., by region or academic objective), and level of study – including
undergraduate, graduate, and language training. Partial scholarships subsidize at least one
area of student costs – tuition, medical care, learning material, lodging, or living
allowance – though full scholarships provide complete coverage in each of these areas
(China’s University and College Admission System, n.d.). Table 1 highlights four
schemes of Chinese government scholarship programs whose target student groups could
potentially include underrepresented American students.

24
Table 1. State-Level Scholarships
Scheme Targeted student group Study program
Duration
(years)
Scholarship
value
Chinese
Government
Scholarship
All international students Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
Language training
4-7
2-5
3-6
Up to 2
Full and
partial
University
Postgraduate
Program
Postgraduate students applying
Chinese universities under the
“985 Project”*
Master’s
Doctoral
2-3
3-4
Full
Degree
Oriented
Program in
Provinces &
Autonomous
Regions
Postgraduate students applying
to designated universities in
specific provinces or autonomous
regions
Master’s
Doctoral
2-3
3-4
Full
Distinguished
International
Students
Students who have finished their
bachelor's education or above in
China and have been designated
Chinese higher education
institutions for further study, or
are now carrying out their
Master's or Doctoral studies in
those institutions
Master’s
Doctoral
1-3
1-4
Full
*National project announced on May 1998 to promote the development and reputation of the Chinese higher education
system. The “985 project” involves both central and local governments allocating funds to 39 institutions to build research
centers, improve facilities, and host exchange programs.
Source: Chinese Scholarship Council
As the internationalization of Chinese higher education grows in breadth and
depth, building world-class institutions – in terms of academic quality and facilities –
remains a key objective. However, despite the bilateral nature of the 100,000 Strong
Initiative, our findings indicate that programs or services targeting underrepresented
American student groups are not among China’s national priorities for partnership with
the U.S. Although the central government is active in signing agreements with and
providing funds to countries and organizations to promote international education
exchange, its recruiting targets are governed more by region and country than student
profile.
Local-Level Efforts
City governments – including those in Beijing, Shanghai, Yiwu, Hangzhou, and
Ningbo – are actively recruiting international students, offering them attractive
scholarship packages to pursue higher education in their jurisdictions (Table 2). These
scholarships range in duration from as little as one semester to full-degree length –
Bachelor’s, Master’s, or doctorate. The value of each scholarship depends on the degree
pursued, but will often cover tuition and living allowances.

25
Table 2. Local-Level Scholarships
Municipality Study Program Scholarship Value
Beijing Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
20,000 RMB (~3,170 USD)/year
30,000 RMB (~4,755 USD)/year
40,000 RMB (~6,340 USD)/year
Shanghai – Class A Master’s
Doctoral
Tuition and Master’s living allowance (+1,100
RMB (~175 USD)/mo.)
+ Doctoral Living allowance (+300 RMB (~50
USD)/mo.)
+ Basic accommodation
+ Medical insurance
Shanghai – Class B Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Tuition
+ Registration fee
+ Book expense
Yiwu Competition winners
College degree or above
3,000 RMB (~4,755 USD)
10,000 RMB (~1,585 USD)/yr.
Hangzhou Two/three year degree
Bachelor’s
Master’s or above
12,000 RMB (~1,900 USD)/yr.
20,000 RMB (~3,170 USD)/yr.
30,000 RMB (~4,755 USD)/yr.
Ningbo Two/three year degree
Bachelor’s
Master’s or above
10,000 RMB (~1,585 USD)/yr.
20,000 RMB (~3,170 USD)/yr.
30,000 RMB (~6,340 USD)/yr.
Source: Chinese Scholarship Council
Transnational educational programs represent another effort in place at local
institutions. Huang (2003) highlighted three major factors that affect the development of
transnational program in Chinese higher educational institutions, notably (1) the
increasing demand for higher education in China; (2) the influence of economic
globalization and entry into the WTO; and (3) the demand for academic quality and
standards.
Since the 1990s, students’ desire to pursue opportunities in higher education has
grown dramatically as a result of China’s rapid economic development. Expansion of
both the number of institutions and programs offered at each school was required to
satisfy this growing demand. Upon its entry into the WTO, China began importing
transnational educational programs to meet the challenges of economic globalization and
WTO membership rules. Thus, the incorporation of transnational higher educational
services into already existing programs was a satisfactory means of enhancing academic
quality and standards. An influx of foreign students into Chinese higher education further
compelled the adoption of transnational education by many institutions (Hayhoe & Zha,
2004; Mok & Xu, 2008).

26
Some key, national institutions – such as Sun Yat-sen University and South China
Normal University in Guangzhou and Soochow University in Suzhou – have created
foreign affairs offices that are responsible for recruiting international students, assisting
them with academic and social matters, and conducting reviews for government
scholarships. Xidian University, a science and engineering school located in Xi’an,
established its School of International Education that offers a broad selection of degree
programs focused in engineering and science, as well as management, arts, and social
sciences. American STEM majors are particularly drawn to Xidian University’s
curricular offerings. Also at the local level, many Chinese universities, prompted by
partnerships with American study abroad providers, have improved facilities to
accommodate students with disabilities that participate in study abroad programs.
Amidst these areas of promise, numerous barriers continue to exist at the local
level. First, scholarships “tend to require…a long time commitment,” notes Speakman,
because of the extended Chinese semesters lasting more than five months. For instance, if
American students enroll in a Chinese university for the fall semester, he says, “You will
arrive in mid- to late-August and you don’t leave until late January,” a timeline that
compromises students’ commitments prior to and returning from study abroad. Local
scholarships have yet to offer support to students pursuing short-term study – or less than
one semester – even though it is the most attractive option for those with time and
financial constraints. Secondly, local programs and scholarships are “really only available
to students who want to study Mandarin, because most Chinese universities do not have a
wide range of programs taught in English,” Speakman admits. He says that most students
are in the market for “programs which will help them understand China as a whole
better,” rather than those which focus strictly on language instruction. American students
– including those underrepresented – might choose to enroll in an introductory class to
Mandarin, but the majority of them are interested in coursework to do with broad Chinese
issues, such as the nation’s “economy, …culture, …[and] history.” Thus, while American
study abroad providers are compelled to arrange programs that cater to these interests,
most Chinese universities have yet to do so.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on our investigation into the trends,
circumstances, and supporting programs associated with underrepresented American
student mobility to China. While this section provides separate recommendations for
study abroad programs and the Institute of International Education, each supports the
growth and/or improved management of underrepresented student mobility. Additionally,
our findings highlighted specific obstacles and successful program features in the areas of
investment, outreach and recruitment, program structure, and data collection and
dissemination; as such, we have further categorized our recommendations according to
these themes.

27
Study Abroad Programs
Investment
Recommendation 1: Bolster institutional and administrative support for
underrepresented student mobility
Raby (2008) listed institutional support as a factor in improving rates of study
abroad at community colleges, but we believe study abroad programs serving all
underrepresented student groups could stand to benefit from more diligent efforts at the
administrative level. Efforts might begin by institutionalizing the study abroad mission at
colleges and universities, primarily led by top-level administrators and staff in the study
abroad and diversity offices. These parties can help mitigate the obstacles to
underrepresented student mobility by articulating their needs in institution mission
statements and budget plans. Institutionalization could also extend to students’
experience on campus through increased focus on course subject matter in a global
context and greater flexibility in curricular requirements to allow opportunity for study
abroad.
To ensure sustainability of these programs, however, buy-in must also be
maintained at the grassroots level. Creating a committee with members whose stake in
the institution and in study abroad vary widely – including students, faculty, junior
administrators, and senior administrators – would be an adequate start. Periodic meetings
could address how best to share information, address underrepresented students’ needs,
and design or refine study abroad programs. To encourage innovation and diversity of
opinion, term-length in such a committee should remain brief, limited to 1-2 semesters.
Such widespread support would require initial dedication to marketing and information
dissemination on the part of high-level administration, but upon stakeholder buy-in,
duties would be diffused institution-wide. We believe improved institutional and
administrative support would ultimately encourage the establishment, maintenance, or
expansion of study abroad programs that recruit underrepresented students.
Recommendation 2: Expand funding and employment opportunities for
underrepresented students
Lack of adequate funding remains a formidable obstacle to underrepresented
students’ study in China. Each of our interview subjects identified finances – whether
related to program costs, scholarship transferal, or added cost of accommodations – as a
factor worth considering while endeavoring to support growth in underrepresented
student mobility. Compared to programs to Western Europe, those to China are markedly
cheaper, Speakman notes, and it would behoove study abroad officials to leverage this
fact when recruiting underrepresented students for study abroad to China or other
nontraditional destinations.
One possible mechanism for expanding funding opportunities includes creating a
student- and cost-swapping scheme, through which American colleges and universities

28
partner with those in China, and each covers the institutional costs typically associated
with study abroad – staffing, coursework, housing – for their partner’s exchange students.
Model partnerships already exist between high schools in the U.S. and China – such as
that between Newton Public Schools in Massachusetts and the Beijing Jingshan School –
and have yielded benefits related to intercultural sensitivity and knowledge, language
fluency, breadth and depth of curricula, and personal development (Landman & Mason,
2008). Higher education partnerships that support underrepresented student mobility are
less widespread, but many promising programs – including the Johns Hopkins-China
STEM program and the Science and Engineering Research program at Northwestern
University which facilitate study abroad to China for STEM majors – are leveraging
extant professional partnerships between organizations to create study opportunities for
underrepresented students (IPD, 2012b; Johns Hopkins University, n.d.).
Despite the comparably higher capacity for growth among semester- or year-long
study abroad programs to China (Gutierrez, Bhandari, & Obst, 2008), short-term
programs also prove more financially and logistically viable for underrepresented
students. A four-week summer program to China, for instance, is a more affordable
option in the way of program and personal expenses. Not only are many underrepresented
students sensitive to issues related to finances, but consequently, they are often job
seekers, as well. Short-term study abroad programs over semester or summer breaks grant
students more opportunity to pursue work upon returning from abroad.
Other options, including internships and work-study programs, would require
more oversight and coordination on the part of the study abroad programs and host
institutions, but are highly practical in terms of long-term employment prospects and
could allow underrepresented students to substantively contribute in the host country
while defraying total program costs. Gordon contends that working abroad would
effectively satisfy the desire expressed by groups of underrepresented students that study
abroad yield “practical benefits,” especially related to future job opportunities.
Outreach and recruitment
Recommendation 3: Establish a dedicated study abroad office and staff on
college/university campuses
Improved outreach and recruitment practices could yield unprecedented growth in
underrepresented student mobility abroad (Dessoff, 2006). However, especially among
community college students and racial minorities – as evidenced by Raby and Gordon,
respectively – our findings identify lack of information and awareness of study abroad
opportunities as significant barriers to underrepresented student mobility to China. These
circumstances, coupled with the growing internationalization of higher education,
bespeak the need for a dedicated, on-campus study abroad office to adequately serving
underrepresented students.
Providers would absorb initial costs in the way of materials and staffing, but in
most cases, a separate office need not allotted nor a full-time study abroad director hired.

29
Instead, administrators could leverage existing personnel from within – a vice president
or dean, for instance, who typically have their own offices as well as contingents of
students from whom they could recruit a support staff of volunteers. A dedicated study
abroad office and staff could more effectively and efficiently manage the organization,
logistical issues, and information sharing required for maintaining programs. We believe
that centralizing the point of information dissemination and support services grants more
legitimacy to study abroad programming and, in the case of underrepresented students,
would stimulate interest and rates of participation.
Recommendation 4: Distribute inclusive study abroad materials and solicit
underrepresented study abroad alumni for support
Our results indicate that many underrepresented students have hesitated to
participate in international study because of the potential for discrimination and
exclusion. Gordon cites “fear of discrimination” as one of the leading barriers to study
abroad to China among racial minority students and families. For students with
disabilities, Scheib notes a strong desire to participate in programs alongside non-
disabled students, rather being excluded from mainstreamed experiences. While white,
middle and upper class females with majors in the arts or humanities still comprise the
majority of American students traveling internationally (Committee of 100, 2011), more
inclusive recruitment and outreach techniques could attract underrepresented students to
study abroad and diversity offices.
It is only appropriate that study abroad materials – including pamphlets, flyers,
posters, websites – reflect the growing heterogeneity on campuses nationwide. To do so,
programs might have to edit and potentially reproduce these materials, but appealing to
underrepresented students through more inclusive images and language remains a
worthwhile investment in light of the 100,000 Strong Initiative’s emphasis on
diversifying the study abroad population to China. Study abroad programs can also call
on underrepresented students who have returned from abroad to function as ambassadors.
It would behoove program administrators to invite underrepresented study abroad alumni
to write about their experiences, present during study abroad fairs, or provide mentorship
to other underrepresented students who are considering international travel. Such an
effort would require considerable energy in networking and logistics, but we believe
peers could be a more compelling and trustworthy source of guidance for students
compared to browsing websites or pamphlets.
Program structure
Recommendation 5: Create state, national, and/or international program
consortia
With hundreds of study abroad options available to students nationwide,
competition among programs runs rampant. Speakman notes that splintered efforts prove
difficult for students to navigate and typically result in shrinking study abroad rates,
especially among those groups of underrepresented students who had not given serious

30
consideration to the possibility from the outset. To increase underrepresented student
mobility to China, reducing this competition and fostering cooperation among university-
based and third-party providers is paramount; according to Raby, “there’s strength in
numbers.” Ultimately, study abroad opportunities should be made clear, concise, and
available to all students and their families.
First, consortia have the potential to expedite information sharing across
institutions. Survey data that provide insight into underrepresented students’ needs and
destination preferences would prove valuable as study abroad professionals establish and
refine programs catering to these groups. China now represents the fifth largest study
abroad destination among internationally mobile American students and interest in
studying in such non-traditional destinations is on the rise (IIE, 2011a), but student
interest in study abroad to China is not so concentrated that each higher education
institution can afford to offer its own program. Consortia provide opportunities for co-
sponsorship of programs, such that HEIs serving underrepresented students cooperate
rather than compete with each other. By allowing individual programs to consolidate
participants into groups of viable size, consortia could effectively reduce overall costs.
As an effective model, The West Virginia Consortium for Internalizing Higher
Education endeavors to enhance opportunities for international education at every higher
education institution throughout the state (West Virginia Consortium for
Internationalizing Higher Education, 2011). According to Speakman, it is “actively
recruiting” students statewide for travel to China. Creating consortia at the state, national,
and/or international allows programs to unite around a common mission, and to the extent
these consortia advocate for underrepresented students, chances of increasing growth in
international study among underrepresented students are amplified.
Institute of International Education
Recommendation 6: Isolate data on the rate of underrepresented student mobility
to China
Reaching 100,000 Americans traveling to China for academic exchange will
require considerable dedication from all stakeholders, and a coordinated data collection
and dissemination plan would help direct decision-making and funding initiatives into the
future. IIE (2011a) currently disaggregates the majority of its data on student
demographics and destination separately. However, in the case of those students enrolled
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities who have pursued study abroad
opportunities, IIE has begun to provide further specificity on student travel. In identifying
the most popular destinations for this group of racial minority students – China being the
leading host country – IIE now disaggregates data by the combination of students’
demographic profile and location of international study (IIE, 2011a).
To address the 100,000 Strong Initiative’s goal of diversifying the composition of
students traveling to China as well as its progress toward this goal, the collection of

31
specific data on study to China among all groups of underrepresented students, as
articulated by this report, would be a worthwhile investment of time and energy. Such a
line of research could be naturally embedded within the already substantial Open Doors
report, and while this increased detail in reporting would depend on appropriate changes
in survey protocol as well as more diligent outreach to and follow-up with participating
institutions, IIE could effectively provide the information necessary for addressing and
assessing the Initiative’s diversification component.
Recommendation 7: Coordinate with the U.S. Department of State, Chinese
Ministry of Education, and international research
organizations in China to disseminate information on
underrepresented American student mobility
The 100,000 Strong Initiative is, in many respects, a bilateral agreement between
the U.S. and China. As such, the concerted energy and cooperation of both nations to
support advocacy, funding opportunities, and data collection related to underrepresented
students is needed to ensure that underrepresented students garner particular focus among
program and funding providers.
In combination with the China Exchange Council, the Chinese Scholarship
Council “has put on a kind of roadshow,” Speakman says, marketing study abroad to
China throughout the United States by appearing at study abroad fairs and providing
information on different types of scholarships. However, beyond such attempts to
increase overall study abroad to China, our findings indicate considerably fewer Chinese-
based programs and scholarships that seek to increase underrepresented student mobility
to China than those based in the U.S. According to Speakman, local Chinese institutions
continue to place more emphasis on recruiting Chinese students for study abroad to the
U.S. than encouraging American students – underrepresented or not – to study in China.
As the U.S. leader student mobility data and resources, IIE is well-situated to act
as an intermediary in coordinating information and data exchange among the Initiative’s
high-level stakeholders, including the U.S. Department of State, Chinese Ministry of
Education, and IIE’s research partners in China. IIE already solicits higher education
institutions worldwide for information about inbound and outbound students, and coupled
with its intimate ties to the U.S. State Department and Department of Education, could
coordinate with Chinese government and research institutions to improve the
comprehensiveness of data reporting on underrepresented students traveling to China.
Significant time and resources would initially be needed to streamline data collection and
dissemination among these parties, but the future could very well yield a greater payoff in
the way of systems efficiency, increased student exchange, and improved educational and
diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China.

32
Conclusion
As American college and university campuses grow more diverse and China’s
economic and political role on the global stage more closely intertwines with that of the
U.S., increasing underrepresented American student mobility to China remains a
compelling objective. Through the 100,000 Strong Initiative, the U.S. federal government
has directly articulated the importance of diversifying the group of students traveling to
China and such a goal is worthy of widespread adoption – in research organizations,
higher education institutions, and among third-party study abroad providers. In some
cases, efforts supporting underrepresented student mobility to China are well-established;
however, most remain marginalized and diffuse.
This brief provides the Institute of International Education as well as study abroad
programs nationwide a consolidated report on the current trends, obstacles, programs, and
funding initiatives associated study abroad to China among underrepresented student
groups. Some of the recommendations put forth, such as expanding funding opportunities
and dedicating a study abroad office, would require an initial investment of resources, but
most are low-cost and require little more than reorganization at the program level,
reaffirmation of the study abroad mission at the institutional level, or increased
collaboration among stakeholders at the state, national, and international levels.
Given its deadline in 2014, the 100,000 Strong Initiative necessitates prompt
action from all stakeholders. If wholly adopted, the recommendations provided here may
well require lengthy implementation time or too much effort by too few individuals. Yet,
both expert opinion and assessment of current obstacles lead us to believe that if adopted
wholly or in part, these recommendations would effectively contribute to growth in or
improved management of underrepresented student mobility to China.
Further investigation into the area of underrepresented student mobility to China
would benefit from perspectives beyond the program level. Information from
underrepresented students, higher education administrators, and relevant government
officials would provide a richer context for the findings yielded by this or another related
study. Such breadth of qualitative research, while appropriate, was not feasible in the
short period during which we collected data. We would also advise that future research
include quantitative investigations focusing on disaggregating data on American student
mobility to China by underrepresented student group.
Beyond the obvious benefits enjoyed by underrepresented students, the
recommendations provided here have the potential to broadly influence stakeholders
across the study abroad field. Improved information sharing and collaboration between
the U.S. and Chinese governments could yield increased bilateral investment in
educational exchange. American businesses and organizations with offices in China
could enjoy a more diverse and culturally knowledgeable applicant pool. Research
institutions in the U.S. and China could contribute more timely and disaggregated data to
assess progress toward the goals of the 100,000 Strong Initiative. Study abroad programs
– both campus-based and third-party providers – would be forced to cooperate, and in

33
some cases consolidate, to allow students access to a centrally-located, diverse listing of
program options. Lastly, improved information and possibility for financial assistance
could allow families to give more serious consideration to the notion of their children
studying in China. Insofar as equity and diversity represent ideals forwarded by 100,000
Strong Initiative, it is pivotal that stakeholders advocate for them diligently and
systematically. To do so otherwise could potentially compromise underrepresented
students’ prospects as well as unreasonably limit the diverse perspectives required to
sustain Sino-American relations into the future.

34
References
AACC (American Association of Community Colleges). (2008-11). Fact sheet.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges
AACC (American Association of Community Colleges). (2011). Fact sheet. Washington,
DC: American Association of Community Colleges
Becker, R., & Kolster, R. (2012). International student recruitment: Policies and
developments in selected countries. The Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands
organisation for international cooperation in higher education.
Bhandari, R., Belyavina, R., & Gutierrez, R. (2011). Student mobility and the
internationalization of higher education: National policies and strategies from six
world regions. New York: The Institute of International Education.
Bohm, A. (2003). Global student mobility 2025: Analysis of global competition and
market share. Paper presented at the 17th IDP Australian International Education
Conference. Retrieved from http://www.aiec.idp.conL/past_papers/2003.aspx/.
Branigan, T. (2009, November 14). China's role on world stage is no cause for alarm,
says Barack Obama. The Observer. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/obama-japan-china-visit.
Brux, J.M., & Fry, B. (2010). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their
issues, and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5),
508-527.
Carter, H. (1991). Minority access to international education. In Black students and
overseas programs: Broadening the base of participation (pp. 9-20). Papers and
speeches presented at the 43rd CIEE International Conference on Education
Exchange. New York: Council on International Education Exchange.
CCIE (California Colleges for International Education). (n.d.). Mission statement.
Retrieved from http://ccieworld.org/missionstatement.htm.
CCID (Community Colleges for International Development). (2011). About CCID.
Retrieved from https://programs.ccid.cc/cci/node/668.
CCID (Community Colleges for International Development). (n.d.). Troika study abroad
programs: China's economic, social and cultural impact due to globalization.
Retrieved from http://ccid.studioabroad.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.
ViewProgram&Program_ID=22722.
Center for Global Education, The. (n.d.). About PLATO. Retrieved from
http://www.globaled.us/plato/about.html.
Chinese Scholarship Council. (2012). Chinese Government Scholarship Program.
Retrieved from
http://en.csc.edu.cn/Laihua/scholarshipdetailen.aspx?cid=97&id=1422.
China’s University and College Admission System. (n.d.). Chinese government
scholarships. Retrieved from
http://scholarship.cucas.edu.cn/ListNews.php?id=35.
Committee of 100. (2011). Secretary of State Clinton hails progress of 100,000 Strong
Initiative at inaugural meeting of advisory committee. Retrieved from
http://committee100.typepad.com/committee_of_100_newslett/2011/06/secretary-
of-state-clinton-hails-progress-of-100000-strong-initiative-at-inaugural-meeting-
of-adviso.html

Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China

Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (17)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China

Ähnlich wie Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China (20)

Corio and Huang - Diversifying U.S. Study Abroad to China